A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) ALL these five writ petitions involve a similar question of law and fact, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) FOR the convenient disposal of all the writ petitions, the facts given in the case Balkishan Vs. State of Rajasthan S. B. Civil Writ Petition no 791/8. 9 are taken into consideration. Petitioner is in possession of a plot of land situated between Krishi Upaj Mandi and F. C. I. Godown near Lalgarh Railway Station. This area is within the municipality of Bikaner and is situated in the area. The area is Kachchi Basti and is known as Indira Nagar Kachchi Basti. This is part of revenue village Beechwali. It is submitted that the State Government has issued from time to time notification and circulars for regularising the possession of these persons who are found in possession of the land at a particular date specified in the notification. Such regularisation was forgery done by the Municipality for Nazul lands lying within their jurisdiction. Thereafter this jurisdiction was conferred upon the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner in relation to the lands within their jurisdiction. Petitioner applied for the regularisation of his land before the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner and it was submitted that the petitioners' application was allowed and the petitioners' land was regularised on payment of a sum of Rs. 6, 150, 65p. It is submitted that after regularisation the Urban Improvement Trust Bikaner issued no objection certificate on 27th October, 1988 in favour of the petitioner to the Assistant Engineer Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bikaner and to Assistant Engineer Public Health Engineer Department for grant of electric and water connection. It is submitted that on 16th February, 1989, Tehsildar Bikaner came over his land with the police force accompanied with the Collector. It is submitted that the Tehsildar with the help of the police officer and the labour engaged by him demolished the construction of the petitioner as well as boundary wall. This action was taken by the Collector and Tehsildar without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner and other persons who has raised the construction were demolished on 16th of January 1989. All these persons approached the Collector and Urban Improvement Trust but without any result. Thereafter petitioner filed a suit in the court of Munsif Magistrate Bikaner. The Urban Improvement Trust and the State of Rajasthan objected to the jurisdiction of the court and contended that this is a revenue land, therefore, the Revenue Court is only competent to try this suit. Thereafter petitioner withdrew the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and has prayed that respondents may be restrained from interfering with the petitioners' possession over the land and same be regularised by the U. I. T. It has also been prayed that permission may be granted to the petitioner for raising construction over the plot. Ultimately petitioner has prayed that the respondent may be directed to hand over the possession to the petitioner. A return has been filed by the respondents and respondents have denied the ground raised by the petitioner, it has been submitted that no regu-larisation was granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that this land does not belong to the U. I. T. and this land belongs to the Revenue Department. As such the respondent U. I. T. has no jurisdiction whatsoever. It was submitted that it is true that the petitioners moved an application and in that application it was submitted that same may be regularised in accordance with the decision of the committee. It is further submitted that the petitioner on his own deposited the aforesaid amount. I have heard both the learned counsel at length. A serious dispute was raised that whether this land belongs to the U. I. T. or to the. Revenue Department. Initially a show cause notice was issued on 5th April, 1989 and an order of status quo was ordered. Thereafter matter came up before me on 12th July 1989 and I direct that the Additional Collector may hear both the parties i. e. U. I. T. , Revenue Department and the affected parties and summoned necessary record and thereafter sent his report. Additional Collector sent his report on 30th September, 1989. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner only confines his submission to the one aspect that this land belongs to the U. I. T. therefore, this declaration may be given that as this land belongs to the U. I. T. , therefore, U. I. T. can regularise the possession of the petitioner in accordance with the Government order issued time to time for regularisation.
(3.) MR. Jain learned counsel for the respondents strenuously urged before me that this land does not belong to the U. I. T. but it belongs to the Revenue Department and in support thereof MR. Jain has invited my attention to section 92 and section 102 A of the Land Revenue Act. MR. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reference of section 92 and 102 A of the Land Revenue Act has no relevance in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case a notification was issued by the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 read with item (x) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959 ). Mr. Purohit learned counsel submitted that section 3 of the Act of 1959 clearly lays down that it is the Government who has power to place certain land at the disposal of the U. I. T and for which the U. I. T. shall prepare a master plan of that urban area. The item No. 10 of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1959 defines the urban area. Learned counsel submitted that in pursuance of this, Government has already issued notification on 20th of May, 1976 and this present land in question which falls in the Revenue village of Beechwali has been placed at the disposal of Urban Improvement Trust and as such U. I. T. is competent to regularise the persons who are in possession of this area. I think the submission of Mr. Purohit deserves to be accepted. For the batter appreciation of the controversy I reproduce here section 3 of the Act of 1959 which reads as under: - "3. Power of State Government to order preparation of master plan.- (l) The State Government may, by order, direct that in respect of and for any urban area in the State specified in the order, a civil survey shall be carried out and a master plan shall be prepared by such officer or authority as the State Government may appoint for the purpose. (2) For the purpose of advising the office or authority appointed under sub-section (1) on the preparation of the master plan, the State Government may constitute an advisory council consisting of a chairman and such number of other members as the State Government may deem fit. " The definition of the 'urban area' as given in item No. 10 of sub section (1) of section 2, which reads as under:- " (x) "urban area" means the urban area notified under section 3 or, as the case may be, under section 8. ' The notification which has been issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under section 3 read with item No. 10 of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1959 reads as under-'town PLANNING (GP. 11) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Jaipur. June 16, 1976. No. F. 1 (13) T. P. 11/72. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 read with item (x) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (Act No. 35 of 1959) and in supersession of this Department Notification No. F. 1 (13) TP/ii/72 dated 8. 3. 1973 the State Government hereby declared that Urban area of Bikaner will include the following villages:- - 1. Bichwali, 2. Anopsagar, 3. Udasar, 4. Ridmalsar Purohitan, 5. Sharsh Kajani, 6. Shivbari, 7. Joharbsar, 8. Kishmidesar, 9. Bhojanshala, 10. Bhinasar, 1 l. Sujandesar, 12. Shriramsar, 13. Karmisar, 14. Sharah Tallan 15. Rughnathsar, 16. Nathusar, 17. Sharsh Nathania 18. Chak Garbi, 19. Bikaner city and 23. Gangashahar, by order Sd/ Gordhanji Mishra, Secretary to the Government. " A perusal of these provisions and the notification clearly lays down that the area falling in the revenue village of Beechwali has been placed at the disposal of the U. I. T. and for which the U. I. T. can prepare a master plan. The master plans are prepared by the U. I. T. of the urban area and same are sent for approval of the Government. Under this master plan a scheme has to be prepared by the U. I. T. According to section 29 the scheme has to be sent to the Government for the approval. In the present case by virtue of the notification revenue village of Beechwali has been declared to be an urban area and placed at the disposal of U. I. T. Bikaner for planned development. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the U. I. T. to say that this land does not belong to the U. I. T. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the has cited number of instances before the A. D. M. when he was inquiring this matter, that the U. I. T. has allotted part of this very land to the Krishi Upaj Mandi and requested the U. I. T. to produce all these records. But such records were not placed before the A. D. M. and he has also mentioned in his report that the U. I. T. was unable to place necessary record. Be that, as it may, I am not concerned with that but the fact remains that by virtue of the notification dated June 16, 1976 issued by the Government purported exercise of its power under section 3 read with item No. (x) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1959 clearly shows that the present land which is in village Beechwali has been placed at the disposal of the U. I. T. It has not been disputed that this plot does not lie in village Beechwali. ;